"Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.

Given that, this verse is not by itself a proof for the Papacy, nor is it even key or vital. It is merely one brick in the foundation for the Papacy. But I would question the strategy of someone presenting this as a main thrust of a proof.

« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 12:59:32 AM by Friul »

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

"Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.

Given that, this verse is not by itself a proof for the Papacy, nor is it even key or vital. It is merely one brick in the foundation for the Papacy. But I would question the strategy of someone presenting this as a main thrust of a proof.

My deepest apologies for the lateness of this response. I don't get to this forum all that often and so easily lose touch of posts.

Choir leader (coryphaei) is used in the plural.”He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart...Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer...’We are able to drink the chalice.’”-Saint John Chrysostom “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2”

...”For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren”

- Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”

This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally with Peter:”And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”

”Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod”-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI”

He goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter:

”Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love....I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it...Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!...what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38 )”-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24”

Further, Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:

”This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last...There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”- Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33”

Even John is said to have 'the keys'...”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

Thus in the context of his writings, John Chrysostomon does not lend support to the Papacy.

Add to this that he spent most of his liturgical life in with a Church that was not in communion with Rome and we see him less and less as a support for the Papacy (as Catholics would wish).

He was ordained by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome (which itself undermines the Catholic position)...

"The work of the Council of Constantinople was completed. Theologically, it had carried the logic of the Council of Nicea and cautiously applied that Council's reasoning about the Son's relation to the Father to the Holy Spirit, though confining its statement to biblical terminology. Administratively, the Council continued the eastern practice of accommodating the ecclesiastical organization to the civil organisation of the Empire, sowing the seeds for discord among the four great sees of East and West by raising the ecclesiastical status of Constantinople to correspond to its civil position as New Rome. All in all, it proved to be a remarkable Council. It was never intended to be an ecumenical council: the Bishop of Rome was not invited: only 150 Eastern bishops were present; only one by accident from the West. Only at the Council of Chalcedon of 451 did it begin to rank in the East with the Council of Nicea as more than a local council. Because of the schism at Antioch its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Its second president, Gregory of Nazianzus, was not in western eyes the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. Strong doubts were later expressed about the authenticity of its creed. Its canons were rejected in the west for nine hundred years.Davis L. D., (1990), "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology", (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), pp128-129.

This Orthodox saint (and doctor of the western church) was ordained a lector by St. Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch (370), and then to the diaconate (381). Later to the priesthood by Meletius' successor St. Flavian (386)."Under Patriarchs Meletius and Flavian, Antioch and Rome were not in communion with each other. It must be emphasized that by receiving ordination at the hands of St. Flavian and St. Meletius, St. John unreservedly recognised them as genuine successors to the see of Antioch. By the very act of receiving ordination from these prelates, he was knowingly placing himself outside communion with Rome."Whelton, M., (2006), "Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims", (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), p110

John Chrysostomon wrote most of his works whilst not in communion with Rome.

Whelton then goes on to detail the reason for the schism; based on the loyalty towards St Meletius. Who interestingly enough was still elected president of a council of 150 bishops convened by the Emperor (The Second Ecumenical Council).

"Because of the schism at Antioch, its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria."Davis L. D., (1990), "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology", (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p129

This site gives this footnoteE. B. Pusey. The Councils of the Church , a.d. 51–381, p. 306. Tillemont, Mémoires , xvj., 662, who says, “If none of those who die out of communion with Rome can merit the title of Saints and Confessors, Baronius should have the names of St. Meletius, St. Elias of Jerusalem and St. Daniel the Stylite stricken from the Martyrology.” Cf . F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and See of Rome , pp. 174 and 238. Many attempts have been made to explain this fact away, but without success. Not only was the president of the Council a persona non grata to the Pope, but the members of the Council were well aware of the fact, and much pleased that such was the case, and Hefele acknowledges that the reason the council determined to continue the Meletian Schism was because allowing Paulinus to succeed to Meletius would be “too great a concession to the Latins” (vol. III., p. 346).

This same quote is probably taken from another source..."It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who was bishop not in communion with Rome"Percival, H. R. (ed.), (1988) "The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church_, Vol XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers", 2nd series, edd. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids MI: Wm.B. Eerdmans)http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801eaw.asp Says that the Pope sent Lucifer to Antioch with authority..."Pope Liberius authorized Athanasius to convoke a council to resolve the schism in Antioch. He sent two legates (Eusebius and Lucifer) with jurisdiction and authority in the East to preside with Athanasius over a council in Alexandria. The synod at Alexandria accepted the regularity of Meletius’s ordination. It appointed an Episcopal commission, which included the papal legates, to reconcile the divided Catholics in Antioch."

What did he do..."Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus.

It was decided therefore that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria, and Eusebius to Alexandria, that by assembling a Synod in conjunction with Athanasius, they might confirm the doctrines of the church. Lucifer sent a deacon as his representative, by whom he pledged himself to assent to whatever the Synod might decree; but he himself went to Antioch, where he found the church in great disorder, the people not being agreed among themselves. For not only did the Arian heresy, which had been introduced by Euzoius, divide the church, but, as we before said, the followers of Meletius also, from attachment to their teacher, separated themselves from those with whom they agreed in sentiment. When therefore Lucifer had constituted Paulinus their bishop, he again departed."Socrates Scholasticus"The Ecclesiastical History" Book III.6

Thus the Papal person proclaimed Paulinus bishop in direct opposition to Meletius. Meletius continued with his own support in direct opposition to the decision of the Pope's man."Now recall that Paulinus is the Pope's man. Meletius continued to hold church services (outside the city walls) during this time. And the two continued in 'office'. One not being the Pope's choice. An arrangement was made that when one died, the other would succeed."Socrates Scholasticus"The Ecclesiastical History" Book V.5

Paulinus actually argued from canon law that there should not be a co-bishop!And of John Chrysostomon; continually consecrated by Meletius, he later separated from him WITHOUT joining in communion with the Pope's man, Paulinus.see Socrates Scholasticus"The Ecclesiastical History"Book VI.3

"About this period Meletius, bishop of Antioch, fell sick and died: in whose praise Gregory, the brother of Basil, pronounced a funeral oration. The body of the deceased bishop was by his friends conveyed to Antioch; where those who had identified themselves with his interests again refused subjection to Paulinus, but caused Flavian to be substituted in the place of Meletius, and the people began to quarrel anew. Thus again the Antiochian church was divided into rival factions, not grounded on any difference of faith, but simply on a preference of bishops.Socrates Scholasticus"The Ecclesiastical History" Book V.9

And as noted John Chrysostomon took orders from Flavian (after Meletius' death). Flavian was not in favour with Alexandria nor Rome. Flavian then sent messengers to Alexandria AND Rome to work out peace.see Socrates Scholasticus"The Ecclesiastical History" Book V.15

At that time there were several and rival claimants to be the proper patriarch in Antioch. Paulinus was the man favoured by Rome and Alexandria. Meletius was favoured by others. Jerome accompanied Paulinus back to Rome in order to get more support for him.

Ambrose hoped that a general council would be called in support of his friend. He hoped that the Pope would be the influence to make this happen.

"Ambrose was agitating for a general council to bring matters to a head, and succeeded in persuading the western emperor, Gratian, to convoke one in Rome. A number of western metropolitans assembled there in the summer of 382, but the east declined to cooperate. In fact Theodosius had no wish to see the settlement he was establishing upset by western meddling, and had already re-convened the council of the previous year at Constantinople. When the belated western summons reached them, the eastern bishops gathered there sent a courteous but firm reply, excusing themselves from attending, apart from a token delegation of three, but not yielding an inch on the disputed issues."Kelly, J. N. D., (1975), "Jerome: His life, writings and controversies", (Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, MA), pp80-81.

Thus the eastern churches did not obey the Pope. John Chrysostomon (sometimes used by Catholic apologists as a pro-Papal writer) always recognised Meletius as the legitimate bishop; someone not in communion with Rome.

Thus he spent most of his life 'in schism'. Most of his writings were in this period.

This Catholic apologist web-site gives some clues to the case"when St. Chrysostom wrote this treatise, he neither was nor ever had been in communion with the Church of Rome, and, in fact, he remained outside of that communion for at least seventeen more years, perhaps for as many as twenty-six." (Puller, Primitive Saints)As he proceeds to prove this in 146 large octavo pages, together with about fifty pages of extra notes, I cannot reply to it here. It is only necessary at present to state that there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome. The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents -- whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city -- were never excommunicated.http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

They accept that Meletius was not Rome’s chosen man. They then pretend there’s no evidence about John’s schism; ignoring that he accepted ordination from the men Rome did not choose. Which is the point I made. And the point you wish to re-write. Rome wanted someone else. Rome didn't have any power. Rome was ignored. John accepted ordiantion from the men Rome didn't want.

Not being in 'communion' with is different from excommunication; it begs the point because Rome didn't have the power to excommunicate them anyway. That's the whole point. Despite Rome's wishes the East was happy with them being in the See of Antioch.

I guess then we can all look at the various quotes and at the Bible itself to figure out what the Papacy is or should be, but really the quotes don't solve the issue since they can be interpreted differently. The bare history itself tells me what I have believed all along - Rome was accorded its place of reverence and spiritual authority due to its seat as the first city of the Roman Empire and the dual martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul there. I think the idea of the direct link of Peter to the bishops of Rome and the transmission of "keys" to them is both a misinterpretation of what is in the Bible and is just simple historically untenable. Much it seems to me rests on this point.

It seems to me the Byzantine Church accepted primacy ( http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355 ) but rejected universal jurisdiction, and that ultimately that is what the schism is about (the Filioque aside). Muscovy actually probably developed its own distinct ecclesiology after departing from Byzantium.

In the end I think all sides need to rid themselves of their various imperial ecclesiologies.

Again that's to ignore history. People from the Papal side post quotes from John Chrysostomon, as but one example, as if he's a supporter of a Papal prince, yet in the reality of history he saw his own life as within the local Antiochian church which was not in communion with Rome.

You are the second person to both argue you can't tell things from quotes from ECF's but are sure you're right!

Again that's to ignore history. People from the Papal side post quotes from John Chrysostomon, as but one example, as if he's a supporter of a Papal prince, yet in the reality of history he saw his own life as within the local Antiochian church which was not in communion with Rome.

You are the second person to both argue you can't tell things from quotes from ECF's but are sure you're right!

Again that's to ignore history. People from the Papal side post quotes from John Chrysostomon, as but one example, as if he's a supporter of a Papal prince, yet in the reality of history he saw his own life as within the local Antiochian church which was not in communion with Rome.

As far as I can tell Saint John Chrysostom was in communion with the bishop of Rome when he was Patriarch of Constantinople. His home see was in communion with Rome from his birth in 349 AD. I am not sure what dates Antioch was out of communion with Rome or exactly what issues were at stake, perhaps you can tell us?

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

As far as I can tell Saint John Chrysostom was in communion with the bishop of Rome when he was Patriarch of Constantinople. His home see was in communion with Rome from his birth in 349 AD. I am not sure what dates Antioch was out of communion with Rome or exactly what issues were at stake, perhaps you can tell us?

St. Meletius, patriarch of Antioch, was deposed in 361 for being associated with the semi-Arian Macedonians. Rome (and Alexandria) backed another line (which died out). St. Meletius was reconciled to Constantinople at the Second Council, which Meltius opened. When he died during it, the council chose his successor (which Rome didn't approve). Rome eventually got on board in 399, and the Meletian schism was healed in 415, when the group that Rome had backed was absorbed back.

On a related issue, who did St. Ephraim recognize as patriarch of Antioch?

« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 05:26:31 PM by ialmisry »

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I have never seen anything to suggest that Saint John Chrysostom was ever not in communion with Rome. In fact, when Saint John Chrysostom was deposed Rome cut off communion with Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople (where another was placed in Saint John's stead) in defense of the great Saint and Doctor.

Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

Quoting Saint John Chrysostom on the primacy of the bishop of Rome is legetimate. I am not sure why montalban thinks that there's some historical problem with doing so. That being said, the information I found on the Meletian schism ...

Saint Meletius (died. 381), Catholic bishop, leader of the Meletian faction in the Antiochene schism. Meletius became (361) Catholic patriarch after the Arians deposed Eustathius. The Eustathians, however, opposed him for his Arian sponsorship and the Arians, who grew unhappy with him, secured his exile. A party of Meletians arose to defend him. Lucifer of Cagliari deepened the schism by uncanonically consecrating Paulinus from the Eustathian ranks, thereby giving Antioch two Catholic bishops. Meletius returned in 378, but Rome favored Paulinus, and the parties would not unite. Meletius died while presiding at the First Council of Constantinople, which sought to end the schism by electing Flavian of Antioch successor to his see. He was the teacher of St. John Chrysostom. Feast: Feb. 12. He is sometimes confused with his contemporary, Meletius of Lycopolis, who organized the widespread Meletian Schism in Egypt, which was aligned with the Arians. (taken from http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Meletius.html )

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

Saint Meletius (died. 381), Catholic bishop, leader of the Meletian faction in the Antiochene schism. Meletius became (361) Catholic patriarch after the Arians deposed Eustathius. The Eustathians, however, opposed him for his Arian sponsorship and the Arians, who grew unhappy with him, secured his exile. A party of Meletians arose to defend him. Lucifer of Cagliari deepened the schism by uncanonically consecrating Paulinus from the Eustathian ranks, thereby giving Antioch two Catholic bishops. Meletius returned in 378, but Rome favored Paulinus, and the parties would not unite. Meletius died while presiding at the First Council of Constantinople, which sought to end the schism by electing Flavian of Antioch successor to his see. He was the teacher of St. John Chrysostom. Feast: Feb. 12. He is sometimes confused with his contemporary, Meletius of Lycopolis, who organized the widespread Meletian Schism in Egypt, which was aligned with the Arians. (taken from http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Meletius.html )

When he presided he was not in communion with Rome! It seems I wasted a lot of research on people who simply want to try the ostrich approach to history; buring one's head in the sand.

I cited primary accounts and also secondary (AND CATHOLIC) evidence that backs what I said.

Yet you miss the point of your own source, too! It shows that Rome sent a representative who they championed as 'their man' in Antioch, Paulinus. Thus there were two patriarchs in Antioch, the Roman and the 'natural' Antiochian, Meletius. John Chrysostomon, during this time took ordination from Meletius. It (your source) says that they would not unite. Meletius then headed the Ecumenical Council as a person not in communion with Rome! Showing that the people of the east saw that this was no bar to him chairing that meeting!

Even if later on Antioch and Rome were reconcilled it doesn't retrospectively negate what John Chrysostomon did. IN fact that Rome would seek to reconcile with a man who had so shunned them would show you that they accepted his ordination as legitimate.

In fact, when Saint John Chrysostom was deposed Rome cut off communion with Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople (where another was placed in Saint John's stead) in defense of the great Saint and Doctor.

Even this misses the point. John Chrysostomon was indeed ousted by those in the east, and indeed Rome defened him. But, was he reinstated? No. Did he accept that he was deposed? Yes.

So the entire eastern world didn't go "Oh my God, the Pope's spoken, let's put him back in his See!"

And John Chrysostomon accepted this.

So Rome's defence was not enough to convince either those deposing or he who was deposed.

montalban, I do not see the significance of pointing out that Antioch was a troubled diocese with two rival claimant bishops ordained by rival camps - one pro-arian and the other pro-nicene - in the church in that diocese. Saint John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been implicated in the schism himself so exactly how does the situation in Antioch abrogate saint Chrysostom's views on the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Had saint Chrysostom intended to say that Rome didn't have primacy then he would not have said that it did.

I observed before that this topic when debated by citing the church fathers never gets very far because both sides have their shibboleths and they will not let them go.

PS: I have had the opportunity to reread your remarks with greater care from post #34 and I thank you for the information. What you've said montalban is useful and seems to make a good case for the situation in Antioch proceeding on its own terms quite independently from the expressed desire, commands, legates etc from Rome and from Alexandria. This does seem to provide a prima face case for independent decisions being made and accepted in the east regardless of the stated desire of the bishop of Rome. I am still not sure how this really makes citing saint Chrysostom about papal primacy inappropriate ...

PPS: I was not making a case for or against collegiate vs monarchical views of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

« Last Edit: December 31, 2007, 12:11:45 PM by Credo.InDeum »

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

montalban, I do not see the significance of pointing out that Antioch was a troubled diocese with two rival claimant bishops ordained by rival camps - one pro-arian and the other pro-nicene - in the church in that diocese. Saint John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been implicated in the schism himself so exactly how does the situation in Antioch abrogate saint Chrysostom's views on the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Had saint Chrysostom intended to say that Rome didn't have primacy then he would not have said that it did.

I observed before that this topic when debated by citing the church fathers never gets very far because both sides have their shibboleths and they will not let them go.

PS: I have had the opportunity to reread your remarks with greater care from post #34 and I thank you for the information. What you've said montalban is useful and seems to make a good case for the situation in Antioch proceeding on its own terms quite independently from the expressed desire, commands, legates etc from Rome and from Alexandria. This does seem to provide a prima face case for independent decisions being made and accepted in the east regardless of the stated desire of the bishop of Rome. I am still not sure how this really makes citing saint Chrysostom about papal primacy inappropriate ...

PPS: I was not making a case for or against collegiate vs monarchical views of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what Montalban has already said:

Say instead of St. John, we have someone today who is ordained by the SSPX. Said priest is elevated by the Lefevrists.

Now, are you going to invite said bishop to teach CCD or RCIA on the Primacy of the Petrine Papacy? Would you accept their writings as authoritative expressions of the magisterium? After all, he's a bishop.

Compare this with the whining of St. Jerome:Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Genesis 7:23 But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus [from whom he would later be ordained, but whose line died out]. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

To throw something else out:

The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.

Historical Note.

(Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)

At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren. He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine. He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation. “We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defence of the three chapters.”

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

montalban, I do not see the significance of pointing out that Antioch was a troubled diocese with two rival claimant bishops ordained by rival camps - one pro-arian and the other pro-nicene - in the church in that diocese. Saint John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been implicated in the schism himself so exactly how does the situation in Antioch abrogate saint Chrysostom's views on the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Had saint Chrysostom intended to say that Rome didn't have primacy then he would not have said that it did.

You can re-work this all you want. As Davis points out that Meletius was not in communion with Rome and Chrysostomon accepted ordination at his hands.

I observed before that this topic when debated by citing the church fathers never gets very far because both sides have their shibboleths and they will not let them go.

That's a non-point. Just because you re-work this into an 'arian' schism doesn't mean we can't know the truth of the matter; and yet you guys also want to have the other side by quoting John Chrysostomon as support for the Papacy

PS: I have had the opportunity to reread your remarks with greater care from post #34 and I thank you for the information. What you've said montalban is useful and seems to make a good case for the situation in Antioch proceeding on its own terms quite independently from the expressed desire, commands, legates etc from Rome and from Alexandria. This does seem to provide a prima face case for independent decisions being made and accepted in the east regardless of the stated desire of the bishop of Rome. I am still not sure how this really makes citing saint Chrysostom about papal primacy inappropriate ...

Only because you continue not to engage in the fact he accepted ordination from people not in communion with Rome. Sure, you want to re-work this as an Arian schism.

ialmisry, I am not sure why an example from 20th and 21st century SSPX ordination and its relationship with current papal primacy has any relevance for 4th century writings. Understanding of the teaching of Christ matures with time, exactly how the bishops of the 4th century saw themselves and their interrelations is important but it cannot be determined by drawing examples from our own times and anachronistically applying them to a situation in the 4th century.

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

The advocates of papal sovereignty on this thread are a perfect example of what Anastasios warned about in reply#1. Thus we have perfect examples of what he meant.

Indeed.

So far: Catholics quote John Chrysostomon about the 'choir-master', then refute this themselves by saying one can't really know what he was thinking by simply looking at his quotes!

I cite a Catholic historian that shows that the Antiochian See was divided between Meletius and a man sponsored by the Pope. John Chrysostomon took ordinations from Meletius who was not in communion with the Pope. Catholics reply "I don't see the significance of this" or "I've never seen this"

Catholics site that John Chrysostomon got support latter on from the Pope. I replied by showing that he still accepted his ousting. He himself was oblivious to the 'power' of the Pope.

montalban, I read your posts with care and decided not to walk down the line of debate that you are proposing. Saint Chrysostom's writings have their context in history which does influence how we should read them today yet his words have meaning in themselves which the accidents of history do not abrogate. If the saint had intended to deny that the bishop of Rome had primacy then he would no doubt not have said that he did.

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

ialmisry, I am not sure why an example from 20th and 21st century SSPX ordination and its relationship with current papal primacy has any relevance for 4th century writings. Understanding of the teaching of Christ matures with time, exactly how the bishops of the 4th century saw themselves and their interrelations is important but it cannot be determined by drawing examples from our own times and anachronistically applying them to a situation in the 4th century.

Now, that's a novel rebuttal!

So when John Chrysostomon accepted office from the hands of those not in communion with Rome, he had no idea about the significance of this, and/or perhaps thought that they were still in communion with Rome? He didn't just accept one rank from them. But moved on to be priest at their hands.

Do you have any evidence that the consecreation of someone outside of communion with Rome is still valid?

And, even after he was ousted and the Pope supported him and he still accepted that he was ousted, he thought that the Pope's word was 'law'?

What you're doing is in effect drawing a conclusion from no evidence...

montalban, I read your posts with care and decided not to walk down the line of debate that you are proposing. Saint Chrysostom's writings have their context in history which does influence how we should read them today yet his words have meaning in themselves which the accidents of history do not abrogate.

That's amazing. His words just prove your position, despite any context from history!

Well that's an unbeatable position to have; believe in the Papacy and ignore any evidence that suggests otherwise!

Assuminga) John Chrysostomon had no idea about the significance of accepting office from those outside of communion with Rome (Also; that there's some major difference between how people took ordination then, to how they do so now.)b) that one quote where he speaks of Peter as head of the Choir is support for the Papacy (that all other references about choir masters we can't really know about the 'context' of any quote that doesn't agree with this because of a) )

In other words you can only be sure to the extent that he agrees with you. Anything else, and we can't tell!

ialmisry, I am not sure why an example from 20th and 21st century SSPX ordination and its relationship with current papal primacy has any relevance for 4th century writings. Understanding of the teaching of Christ matures with time, exactly how the bishops of the 4th century saw themselves and their interrelations is important but it cannot be determined by drawing examples from our own times and anachronistically applying them to a situation in the 4th century.

The quote from Saint Jerome shows he understood the relevance.

When St. John was ordained the schism was over two decades old. There was no secret where people stood. Rome had condemned Meletius, not only as a schismatic but a heretic.

Rome and Meletius were no more in communion then B XVI and Ignatius IV. Or Lefebvre (hence the relevance). And like Lebvre and B XVI, both insisted you take sides (look again at Jerome's dilemna).

It was not an issue an issue understanding the teaching of Christ (although you have been clearer about this claim then I hereto have seen. I didn't understand before why the apologists of Rome were insisting that the council that deposed John Chrysostom was Arian. Now I see where their confusion came from): Rome had condemned Meletius and ordained a replacement. It was even more like the Latin patriarch set up by the Crusaders in Antioch, then the elevation of the Maronite, Melkite and Syrian patriarchs now: Rome went and picked Paulinus, not recognizing but actually ordaining him.

By the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, Meletius and Paulinus had reconciled, and had a personal understanding that the one would succeed the other at the death of either one. Rome and Alexandria on the one hand had insisted on Paulinus (although Alexandria at Constantinople I had accepted Meletius who presided). The Second Ecumenical Council INSISTED on someone else than Paulinus, whom Rome continued to support.

St. John's writing make clear which side he stood on, and it wasn't Rome's: he writes with obvious approval of the resistence in Antioch flocking to Meletius, who ordained him to the priesthood (hence the SSPX analogy). He however conciliated, and managed to get Rome to finally recognize Flavian (and it would seem Meletios, who is now a saint on the Roman calendar). But the faction that Rome had supported continued their separate existence for a couple decades.

As St. John is known for practicing what he preached (the reason why he got exiled), his wilful "disobedience" to Rome cannot be squared with a Vatican I understanding of his writings.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

But primacy as Rome currently defines it didn't exist at the time. How can you interpret St John not condemning something that didn't exist as evidence he supported it?

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.

What evidence do you have that he suppored 'any' concept of the Papacy?

And what was the 'concept' then of the Papacy? Was it not that of a Papal Prince as it is now?

What evidence do you have that he suppored 'any' concept of the Papacy?

And what was the 'concept' then of the Papacy? Was it not that of a Papal Prince as it is now?

A Google for "Origin of the term Pope" yielded this

Quote

"...The word "pope" means father. In ancient Greek it was a child's term of affection but was borrowed by later Latin as honorific. Both Greek-speaking Eastern and Latin-speaking Western Christians then applied it to priests and bishops and patriarchs ('head of the family'); and still today priests of the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Russia and Serbia call their parish priests 'pope'. Gradually, however, Latin started to restrict its usage. At the beginning of the 3rd century, 'papa' was a term of respect for churchmen in high positions; by the 5th century, it was applied particularly to the bishop of Rome; and after the 8th, as far as the West was concerned, the title was exclusively his...."

Source: Chronicle of the Popes, by P.G. Maxwell-Stuart

I am not sure what the earliest use of the term "pope" or its Latin or Greek equivalent is, but I am sure that further research on google would turn it up.

As for your questions about Chrysostom's concept of the papacy or the concept of the papacy that was current in his times I am sure that some patristic quotes can be found that would give a hint. I am not much interested in producing the quotes myself.

Cheers,Phil

« Last Edit: January 04, 2008, 10:45:31 AM by Credo.InDeum »

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

A Google for "Origin of the term Pope" yielded thisI am not sure what the earliest use of the term "pope" or its Latin or Greek equivalent is, but I am sure that further research on google would turn it up.

Cheers,Phil

Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248) was the first to receive the title.

Rome didn't get it until later (though I think before John I, though perhaps not consistently).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.

Well if you agree with me that St John, or for that matter many other Fathers almost certainly didn't have the same concept of the papacy that Catholics do today, then it is tenuous at best to use their statements to support the modern idea of papal primacy. No?

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.

I'll ask you the same question I've asked on other forums. Do you believe that if St John Chrysostom, St Basil or any of the other ECF's who are often cited as supporting Rome's definition of primacy were to read the acts of the First Vatican Council, that they would have no problem with it whatsoever?

I'll ask you the same question I've asked on other forums. Do you believe that if St John Chrysostom, St Basil or any of the other ECF's who are often cited as supporting Rome's definition of primacy were to read the acts of the First Vatican Council, that they would have no problem with it whatsoever?

Yours in ChristPaisius

I wouldn't say that, no.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure that St. John, St. Basil, etc., would say that Rome has fallen into heresy, as modern Orthodox have said. After all, some of the early popes had strong view about papal authority, without being anathematized by the other patriarchs.

The main difference, it seems to me, is that those popes didn't claim their position to be a dogma of the faith, whereas we Catholics of today do claim that our position is a dogma of the faith.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure that St. John, St. Basil, etc., would say that Rome has fallen into heresy, as modern Orthodox have said. After all, some of the early popes had strong view about papal authority, without being anathematized by the other patriarchs.

Well if you agree with me that St John, or for that matter many other Fathers almost certainly didn't have the same concept of the papacy that Catholics do today, then it is tenuous at best to use their statements to support the modern idea of papal primacy. No?

Yours in ChristPaisius

I did not use their statements to support the current Catholic teaching on the primacy of the pope.

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

A Google for "Origin of the term Pope" yielded thisI am not sure what the earliest use of the term "pope" or its Latin or Greek equivalent is, but I am sure that further research on google would turn it up.

What's the title got to do with the concept of a bishop of bishops? There's a Pope in Alexandria too.

As for your questions about Chrysostom's concept of the papacy or the concept of the papacy that was current in his times I am sure that some patristic quotes can be found that would give a hint. I am not much interested in producing the quotes myself.

So in other words you continue to have no evidence.

That's the essence of your argument to date; you just believe that it is so. When pressed you give no proof

But on the other hand, I'm not sure that St. John, St. Basil, etc., would say that Rome has fallen into heresy, as modern Orthodox have said. After all, some of the early popes had strong view about papal authority, without being anathematized by the other patriarchs.

There was still a chance at re-newal with communion. John Chrysostomon lived in an age when the Pope, though not in communion with him always, often saught unity.

I'll ask you the same question I've asked on other forums. Do you believe that if St John Chrysostom, St Basil or any of the other ECF's who are often cited as supporting Rome's definition of primacy were to read the acts of the First Vatican Council, that they would have no problem with it whatsoever?

Yours in ChristPaisius

I do not know what saints Chrysostom & Basil or any other saints of the first few centuries would make of the proceedings of Vatican II. My guess is that they'd be rather confused by the whole process of theology in today's world. They'd very likely be confused by Orthodox and Catholic Churches and who knows what they'd make of Protestantism's denominations.

Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI

a) Catholics believe Chrysostomon supported some as yet unknown position on the papacybased onb) a single quote where he calls Peter the head of the choirthoughc) we can't be sure about the context of any other quote cited herein by Chrysostomon nord) can we be sure about any historical context.

All we can be sure of is a), based on Credo.InDeum saying so, and telling me to go research the origins of the term, somewhere else!

I wonder if he would submit that as an essay! I would suggest you would only get 1 or 2 marks for spelling. But to actually construct a reasoned argument, no points forthcoming at all.

But please, don't let me discourage you; just keep posting that you believe it, and maybe it will become true.

I do not know what saints Chrysostom & Basil or any other saints of the first few centuries would make of the proceedings of Vatican II. My guess is that they'd be rather confused by the whole process of theology in today's world. They'd very likely be confused by Orthodox and Catholic Churches and who knows what they'd make of Protestantism's denominations.

Papal authority bordlerlining on supremacy. Certain Popes of the 5th century, many will argue, were huge supporters of Papal supremacy over the entire Church. Sts. Innocent, Boniface, Leo, & Gelasius, I believe are a few that are often mentioned.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Papal authority bordlerlining on supremacy. Certain Popes of the 5th century, many will argue, were huge supporters of Papal supremacy over the entire Church. Sts. Innocent, Boniface, Leo, & Gelasius, I believe are a few that are often mentioned.

That's not quite the answer to the question I asked.

I was asking about John Chrysostomon's idea on the papacy, because Credo.InDeum says that the saint didn't support the modern concept, but another form of papacy.

'bordering supremacy' is an attempt to answer but gives me no details at all. Anything could be said to fit within that.